Author
Topic: Laughable "Refutation" (Read 3732 times)

Can't you see, amputees aren't people who were healed in the first place(ignoring of course how limbs actually are sometimes ripped off in accidents) but instead goes on to destribe a WWII Japanese biological attack creating an area. Then goes on to say "Amputation saves lives" ignoring the whole point of the question with some misdirection techniques.

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

*facepalm* I don't even have to watch the video to know how stupid this is going to be.

Most amputations happen because someone suffers a severe enough injury that the limb can't be saved and trying to keep it would likely kill them. And the sheer agony that a person suffers as a result of a limb being cut off, even if it's to save their life, is horrifying. Even with modern medical assistance, it's still awful. Given the choice between an amputation and regenerating a limb (which happens in nature, so it's at least possible), I can't imagine anyone choosing amputation. Even if it took as long to recover from a limb regeneration as it did from an amputation, even if it was equally painful, even if the chance of dying were the same.

And this person thinks he can dance around the subject simply because people have a better chance of surviving with a limb removed than with a ruined limb that's still attached? Seriously?

You don't ask amputees! You ask someone who has been healed and avoided amputation!

Well, that settles it folks. God hates amputees.

But wait! What about all those villagers who underwent this chemical attack? He killed off a bunch right off. Then he waited to see which ones were going to pray. He selected the ones who had good prayers, and subjected them to amputation to HEAL them. Because he LOVED them.

Then he killed off the ones he didn’t love so much.

Or maybe he called them home to him. Not sure which.

But in any case, I feel that the question of why god does not heal amputees has been satisfactorily answered. Time to shut down the web site and go to church everybody.

What he claims to be a miracle of God is actually people with an immune system strong against the infection. Yes, I'm sure people appreciate that having an amputation has saved their life, but that does not change the issue, but rather it dodges it. His answer only opens room for more questions, why will God heal them but not the others? Why did God let some die and others live? Why did God not heal them before they needed an amputation? Why didn't God fix the amputation after it happened? Why do they have to live a life missing a limb whilst the others got away better. Sure it's better than being dead, but not better than having all of your limbs and being alive.

However, the question is about prayer, but people rarely seem to read the site beyond the question and then pretend they've read the site. The part about amputees? Well diseases can be cured naturally and using medical science, amputations are never truly 'fixed', the limbs can be replaced, maybe with a transplant or prosthetics, but you don't grow that limb back. God's miracles are only mundane and ambiguous, never anything definite and when they're supposedly definite, conveninently we can never get the data to measure it. This method is more measureable, we can see if we're talking about a genetic mutation or a miracle from God. God promises to answer prayers, so it's an incredibly important question to ask. Yet, it's one folk don't ever seem to get.

Logged

“It is difficult to understand the universe if you only study one planet” - Miyamoto MusashiWarning: I occassionally forget to proofread my posts to spot typos or to spot poor editing.

Christians tell us all of the time that through prayer, or simply "the power of God", people are physiologically modified to be "healed" by God. Their physiology is changed at the hands of the almighty, in order to "heal" their ailment - whatever it may be. The stories come by the thousands, over the millenium. Hell, there are even stories of healing amputees!

But while doctors can and have thrown their hands up and proclaimed that some people heal miraculously (i.e., doctors have no medical explanation), there has yet to be a case of a limb being healed "miraculously".

It's a simple proposition and question, and one that no one can answer without admitting that there is simply no God, or that God refuses to heal amputees.

It almost, but not quite, goes without saying, that people who base their whole philosophy of life on the irrational will sometimes carry that concept out into the real world and try applying it to things like unhealed amputees. Ragged thought processes, when highly venerated, can carry crap to a very high level and cause other crap to spontaneously generated. And they can make a video of it.

It's a miracle.

Logged

It isn't true that non-existent gods can't do anything. For instance, they were able to make me into an atheist.

4:26-4:31 "other miraculously healed ... with antibiotics"What exactly is miraculous about having a known cure applied that is X% effective and then seeing X% indeed become cured?Since antibiotics were still new back then, I guess you could argue about the X not being known. But still, antibiotics were administered and in some cases, they did their job. Massive win for science, I'd say, nothing miraculous here.

Btw, in his mind, he DID answer the question. Amputees are being healed in the bible ... QED! (neatly ignoring that none of that was ever confirmed and that none of that seems to going on today)

Logged

Science: I'll believe it when I see itFaith: I'll see it when I believe it

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

Yeah, this is absolutely hilarious. But wow, I used to sound similar to this guy!

HIS CLAIMS:

1. Amputation is not a diagnosis. It is a result from not being healed2. Amputees ARE healed b/c amputation saves their life3. People who avoid amputation are miraculously healed by antibiotics 4. God DID heal amputees in the bible through Jesus 5. With God all things are possible6. You need Jesus

MY RESPONSE:

1. How about the immediate amputation that comes from roadside bombs!! 2. So anytime a doctor does anything to help someone you can call it a "miracle"? So miracles are nothing more than natural things (i.e. - You cannot distinguish between miracles and non-miracles). YAY. 3. What about when they are not given antibiotics and they die? Is that proof that your God doesn't exist? You can't have it both ways. 4. Prove it5. If all things are possible then you need to follow the command of Jesus and get to healing at the veterans hospital before they begin surgery!! 6. Just like you need the Brain Fairy?

saw this as a tag to a post..."Most theist/atheist arguments tend to boil down to this: Theists quote scriptures as if they were facts and atheists cite facts as if they were facts." i have also seen many say, that's not true about scripture and the bible with nothing more than, citing that someone doubts the authenticity or authority of the text. I am ok with people not believing the bible, and for examining the bible and calling out the parts of scripture that don't add up, but I don't understand why there is not equal respect for those who don't buy into the idea that there is no God.

saw this as a tag to a post..."Most theist/atheist arguments tend to boil down to this: Theists quote scriptures as if they were facts and atheists cite facts as if they were facts." i have also seen many say, that's not true about scripture and the bible with nothing more than, citing that someone doubts the authenticity or authority of the text. I am ok with people not believing the bible, and for examining the bible and calling out the parts of scripture that don't add up, but I don't understand why there is not equal respect for those who don't buy into the idea that there is no God.

When a text has obvious concrete errors, yet is asserted to be the instruction manual of life and has all the marks of being just another mythology, I do not have equal respect for those asserting it is different or special. No more than I would have respect for people who think Nostradamus predicted the future, the Iliad showed how the Greek gods interfered in the Trojan war, or that there really is a Hogwart's.

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

saw this as a tag to a post..."Most theist/atheist arguments tend to boil down to this: Theists quote scriptures as if they were facts and atheists cite facts as if they were facts." i have also seen many say, that's not true about scripture and the bible with nothing more than, citing that someone doubts the authenticity or authority of the text. I am ok with people not believing the bible, and for examining the bible and calling out the parts of scripture that don't add up, but I don't understand why there is not equal respect for those who don't buy into the idea that there is no God.

When a text has obvious concrete errors, yet is asserted to be the instruction manual of life and has all the marks of being just another mythology, I do not have equal respect for those asserting it is different or special. No more than I would have respect for people who think Nostradamus predicted the future, the Iliad showed how the Greek gods interfered in the Trojan war, or that there really is a Hogwart's.

Then why would you have an respect for texts that cannot even be sure where Joseph and Mary lived before Jesus was born, can't get the governors and roman official right (as checked against Roman records) and even invents Herod killing the under 2s - it must be invented as there is no mention anywhere except one gospel.

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

"I am ok with people not believing the bible, and for examining the bible and calling out the parts of scripture that don't add up, but I don't understand why there is not equal respect for those who don't buy into the idea that there is no God."

This fundy (like most) has a grievous misunderstanding of what the term "atheist" means. Atheism is not a positive claim. It is a negative one. We reject the claims of theists. That is all atheism means.

saw this as a tag to a post..."Most theist/atheist arguments tend to boil down to this: Theists quote scriptures as if they were facts and atheists cite facts as if they were facts." i have also seen many say, that's not true about scripture and the bible with nothing more than, citing that someone doubts the authenticity or authority of the text. I am ok with people not believing the bible, and for examining the bible and calling out the parts of scripture that don't add up, but I don't understand why there is not equal respect for those who don't buy into the idea that there is no God.

When a text has obvious concrete errors, yet is asserted to be the instruction manual of life and has all the marks of being just another mythology, I do not have equal respect for those asserting it is different or special. No more than I would have respect for people who think Nostradamus predicted the future, the Iliad showed how the Greek gods interfered in the Trojan war, or that there really is a Hogwart's.

Then why would you have an respect for texts that cannot even be sure where Joseph and Mary lived before Jesus was born, can't get the governors and roman official right (as checked against Roman records) and even invents Herod killing the under 2s - it must be invented as there is no mention anywhere except one gospel.

Well, I don't.

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.